I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that you aren't making the choice to not let someone die.

People are just expecting you to be able to handle being asked, "Why did you let 10 people die when there was an option for you to only let 1 person die instead?"

The trolley being on the warpath isn't your fault; but you did have the option to reduce the number of deaths by taking action. Through your choice, an objectively larger number of people suffered, died, or lost a loved one. And for some actual reason you didn't pull the lever other than "I'm not a murderer."

We understand you aren't a murderer. You aren't intending to hurt anyone. But through your action, you can reduce the number of people murdered. Don't be surprised when people are confused at your lack of rationale.

I trust crypto bros less than I trust Microsoft.

Why trust either? #firefox

If it can reassure you, it’s not an active thing, our brain just sees signs and does the interpretation of how the person feels all by itself

This varies from person to person. Personally, I'm alexithymic. I had to study body language and facial expressions actively in order to stop being completely blind to other peoples' emotions/mental states. I solely relied on verbal communication to interpret peoples' intentions for the first 25 or so years of my life. Made a lot of shit really hard!

Doing much better these days though.

Yeah, that's what I thought, lol.

Is simply answering OP's question considered "butthurt" now?

You say "everyone" in this thread is butthurt. Who, specifically, is butthurt in this thread? Call someone out by name.

I like this idea. A term that is site-agnostic is a good idea since there are so many potential names for any given instance.

There's also just no elegant way to turn "kbins.social" into a term that rolls off the tongue. "k-beans" and similar terms are just awkward and I can't see them being adopted en masse.